Grant Wacker on Billy Graham: Cushwa’s Spring Seminar

Duke Divinity School historian Grant Wacker’s new book on Billy Graham was the focus of this spring’s Cushwa Center Seminar in American Religion at the University of Notre Dame, which met this past Saturday. Although Wacker has been teaching at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1977, I first remember hearing about him back in 2003, when he published Heaven Below, his landmark book on American Pentecostalism. With last year’s release of America’s Pastor: Billy Graham and the Shaping of a Nation, Wacker has again delved into an important part of the history of evangelicalism. The book has received attention, among other places, in the New York Times, in Christianity Today, and at Breakpoint, where a friend of mine, Benjamin Wetzel, has written a review. Along with Wacker, the Cushwa meeting hosted Richard Bushman, long time authority on American religious history, and Christian Smith, noted sociologist who has also focused his work on American evangelicals. Bushman and Smith offered critiques.

Amid the critiques, Wacker’s response, and audience discussion, several talking points rose to the surface. Wacker discussed at length his approach to writing this book, since it obviously deals with such a well-known figure and there is no shortage of Graham biographies. Wacker’s focus is not on Graham’s private or family life, but he paints a picture of Graham as a public figure – a revivalist from a farm family who rose to prominence … someone who transcended the careers of earlier revivalists such as Aimee Semple McPherson or Billy Sunday, to become a figure whose career intersected with major currents in American culture. Other biographies, such as William Martin’s A Prophet with Honor, just did not provide such an approach. Afterall, Graham’s public life both mirrored the ebb and flow of American evangelical culture as well as shaped it in important ways. “Telling Graham’s story,” Wacker said, “was much more about America, than it was about Graham’s story.” Here was an iconic figure who was able to “appropriated the trends of the age and put them to work for himself.”

In a room full of professional historians and Notre Dame graduate students, the discussion moved from Graham’s ability to avoid divisive issues such as the inerrancy debates, Graham’s overseas crusades, his preaching against Communism, the Cold War backdrop of his ministry, his support of racial integration, his relationship with presidents and public figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., and the lessons he learned about partisan politics from Vietnam and Watergate. Both Bushman and Smith raised questions about the relationship between Graham’s evangelical America and today’s generation of evangelicals. Who has picked up Graham’s mantle? Perhaps Rick Warren, Smith proposed. Others looked to Tea Party evangelicals or even Oprah as candidates for the Graham mantel. The consensus, however, was that Graham had never reproduced himself – not even in his son, Franklin, whose more abrasive style, Wacker implied, was a product of Ruth Graham rather than his father Billy.

In summary, as Wacker stated in his introduction and reiterated on Saturday, he hoped to write this book in a way that would connect with a broader audience – not just historians and scholars. And it was clear that he had succeeded in stripping away much of the stuffy academic language and in so doing employed an engaging style that incorporated language that would be familiar to evangelical readers. Love Graham or hate him, readers will find a book that offers a sympathetic treatment of Graham by an author who clearly admires Graham and his ability to foster a nonpartisan spirit that has largely disappeared among conservative evangelicals in more recent times.

What’s next at Cushwa’s Seminar in American Religion? Jason C. Bivins’ Spirits Rejoice! Jazz and American Religion (OUP, 2015) — October 31, 2015.


4 thoughts on “Grant Wacker on Billy Graham: Cushwa’s Spring Seminar

  1. Evangelicals don’t have “successors” as such. It’s a post-traditional, post-confessional identity or ethos. Nobody should find this surprising, but perhaps the Noll-Marsden type of quest for institutional, academic credibility based on a canon and “tradition” reflects a substantial bit of Catholic envy and/or fear of what free-ranging pietist movements can do or become without the deep, ponderous moorings of a canonical tradition.

      1. Think there’s anything to it? it might be better stated as a point about “free church evangelicals” not just “evangelicals.”

        This is a great blog — I ran across it by accident this weekend while researching family (and Moravian) history. Thanks for your contributions in that area.

  2. Yes, I do think you’re right that evangelicals in general don’t think in terms of formal successors, especially those from non-Calvinist or other more “confessional” circles. Sometimes there are mantels passed down in informal or implied ways, however, and more so when there is someone with the sort of notoriety of Graham. Its my understanding that some evangelicals view Graham as carrying on the torch of Billy Sunday, with Helen (“Ma”) Sunday serving as the bridge. At the Cushwa meeting, I didn’t get the feeling that commenters were implying there should or would inevitably be a Graham successor — only that Graham was such an evangelical institution that his departure from public life is likely leaving an opening for others to fill. For what its worth …

    Thanks for the encouragement!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s